“The existing judicial system is too costly, too painful, too destructive, too inefficient for a truly civilized people... To rely on the adversarial process as the principal means of resolving conflicting claims is a mistake that must be corrected." The Late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Colorado Mediators & Arbitrators™ | COMA was founded in 2005 to resolve disputes while balancing quality, cost, and efficiency. We are committed to fairness and fair process in both Mediation(negotiated settlement) & Arbitration(a private judge renders a decision.) COMA mediates business, real estate, and divorce matters with excellence. Our 3-tiered arbitration program offers a targeted approach that removes prohibitive arbitration costs by tying the amount of claim to the type of hearing, and that provides for expediency and efficiency.

If the thought of litigation makes you question your own stamina and resources, we are here to save you thousands of dollars in litigation costs and cut off months, if not years, in the judicial court process. Get a fair settlement while spending less time and money.

Mediation: A confidential negotiation of the disputed matters. Mediation allows maximum control with minimal cost utilizing a professional negotiator who assists disputing parties to find mutually satisfactory solutions to their differences. Approximately 95% of all cases filed in court are resolved prior to trial. When agreement is reached, a Memorandum of Understanding is executed and enforceable in court. We make every effort to schedule mediation quickly, within 30 days of the filing of the Mediation Submission Agreement.

Med-Arbitration: Med-Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that combines the self-determination of mediation with the finality of arbitration. In the initial stage of a Med-Arbitration proceeding, the parties attempt to reach a voluntary settlement through negotiation that is facilitated by a single, neutral Med-Arbitrator. If settlement is not reached, the parties are given a full and fair hearing by the same Med-Arbitrator. After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the Med-Arbitrator shall render a simple written decision which is binding on the parties.

Arbitration: A confidential binding decision by a private judge. Arbitration provides speedy resolution to disputed matters. Colorado Mediators & Arbitrators™ offers a 3-Tiered Arbitration Program that makes financial sense evaluating costs and benefits. We make every effort to conclude Documentary and Teleconference Hearings within 60 days of the initial filing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that consumers who received the Aspire Visa credit card are bound by a mandatory arbitration provision in their applications.

Excerpts:

The plaintiffs had claimed in a class action suit that they were promised $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees. They maintained that the Credit Repair Organizations Act gave them a right to sue. They cited a provision in the CROA requiring credit repair organizations to tell consumers, “You have the right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act.”

Gary Paul, president of the American Association for Justice, criticized the decision in a press release. “With this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has given corporations a way to escape accountability by forcing consumers into a rigged and biased forced arbitration process, even when Congress expressly provides a remedy in a court of law," he said.

"For over 20 years I have presided over or participated as a panelist in hundreds of arbitrations. Those experiences have shown me the good, the bad and the ugly. Quite frankly, there are many more seriously egregious mistakes I have seen lawyers make; it was difficult to pare this list down to 10."Author Phil Cutler of Cutler Nylander & Hayton PS

#10 – Play Games: Engage in Cheap Games and Discovery Abuse; Continue Gamesmanship During the Hearing

#8 – Overuse or Misuse Technology: Use Fancy but Unnecessary Technological or Demonstrative Aids; Fail to Know how to use Them

#7 – Waste Opportunities to Persuade the Arbitrator: Assume the Arbitrator Shares Your Knowledge of the Case; Fail to Analyze, Distill and Organize Your Case; File Long and Unpersuasive Briefs

#6 – Ask Inappropriate Questions; Fail to Pick up on an Opportunity to Deal With Something the Arbitrator views as Important; Ignore a Witness’s Non-Responsive Answer: Ask Questions That are not Really Questions or ask Overly Legalistic Questions of a Lay Witness; Rebuff Questions from the Arbitrator

#5 – Assume the Evidentiary Rules in Arbitration are the Same as Those in Court: Fail to Take the Time to Understand the Rules of Evidence; Make Numerous and Ineffective Evidentiary Objections

#4 – Misuse Cross-Examination of Witnesses: Try and use Cross to Prove Your Case in Chief; Fail to Plan Cross Before the Hearing

#3 – Continue Blithely on, Ignoring What Common Sense Tells (or Should Tell) You: Fail to Know When to Stop; Treat the Arbitrator as an Unsophisticated Rube

#2 – Make it Difficult for the Arbitrator to Rule in Your Client’s Favor: Fail to Organize Your Case and get Your Client’s Story Across

In a major win for companies doing business with consumers, on April 27, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California rule of law, announced in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 113 P. 3d 1100 (2005), that arbitration agreements are unconscionable and unenforceable unless they provide for classwide arbitration. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. ____ (2011).

Excerpts:

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, holding that the FAA preempts the Discover Bank rule. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Scalia first noted that, where state law outright prohibits arbitration, the FAA displaces that state law. In Concepcion, however, the inquiry was "more complex" because the Court was asked to consider whether "a doctrine [i.e., unconscionability] normally thought to be generally applicable" and thus excepted from the FAA's broad preemption by Section 2 of that Act was being applied in a manner that disfavored arbitration.

Concepcion thus establishes that the FAA prevents courts from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements merely because they preclude plaintiffs from proceeding as a class. More broadly, it shows that rules of state law that condition enforceability of arbitration agreements on requirements that arbitration include procedures paralleling those of litigation may also be preempted. The more exactingly that states seek to apply unconscionability doctrines to force arbitration to approximate litigation, the more likely such applications are to be preempted by Section 2 of the FAA.

Manage Conflict and Resolve Problems by Negotiating

Traditionally, conflict has been viewed as a destructive force to be ignored or silenced; today, many are redefining conflict as an opportunity. Once conflict is approached as a cooperative effort, nurses and other healthcare professionals can restructure trust to enhance professional relationships. By understanding the dynamics of negotiation in areas such as leadership, power, and conflict management, healthcare professionals will improve the quality of their professional practice, relationships and their working environment.